The Supreme Court is hearing a fresh plea filed by P Chidambaram challenging the trial court's order that remanded him to the custody of the Central Bureau of Investigation till August 26 in relation with the INX Media corruption case.
The trial court had passed the order on August 22.
The top court will also hear a separate petition by Chidambaram challenging the Delhi High Court's August 20 order dismissing his anticipatory bail in the INX media corruption and money laundering cases lodged by CBI and ED.
A CBI court on Monday reserved its order on the remand of Chidambaram in the INX media case.
At the packed Rouse Avenue Court, Special CBI judge Ajay Kumar Kuhar, whose court deals with criminal cases pertaining to MPs and MLAs, on Monday reserved the order on the Central Bureau of Investigation remand of Chidambaram.
The former minister was on last Thursday remanded in CBI custody till August 26 after his arrest the previous night.
Stay tuned to this space as we bring to you live and latest updates on the hearing
15:45 | Chidambaram's family, in a statement, challenges govt to produce 'shred of evidence'
"While we understand that the motive of the government is to demonise and humiliate P Chidambaram, we are deeply saddened that the media is unable to uphold liberty against calumny. One of the fundamental principles of liberty is: Every person is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law," Chidambaram's family claimed in a statement.
15:30 | Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for ED, said he would like to reply to the fresh application during the course of his arguments.
The transcripts will show whether Chidambaram was evasive during his questioning, as alleged by the ED, Sibal said.
He also told the bench that the ED cannot place documents in the court randomly and "behind the back" for seeking Chidambaram's custody.
"They are just producing documents at random and saying this is part of the case diary," Sibal said, adding, "They cannot place the documents behind the back and seek custody of accused."
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, also appearing for Chidambaram, referred to the constitutional and legal provisions and said that fundamental right of citizens under Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) cannot be suspended.
Singhvi argued that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) was amended in 2009 whereas the allegations in the case are of 2007-2008.
"You try and paint a person as a kingpin when these alleged offences did not exist at that time," he told the court during the arguments which will continue in the post lunch session.
15:25 | The Supreme Court has extended interim protection granted to Chidambaram from arrest. The top court will continue to hear tomorrow plea of P Chidambaram against Delhi HC order dismissing his anticipatory plea
14:45 | Chidambaram was interrogated about five prominent officers -- ex-NITI Aayog CEO Sindhushree Khullar, Anup K Pujari, Prabodh Saxena, Rabindra Prasad and Ajith Kumar Dug.
13:50 | Arguing on the line of questioning adopted by the investigating agencies, Singhvi said it appeared they were attempting to extract a confession from Chidambaram.
He also told the court that investigating agencies were painting a wrong picture that Chidambaram was evasive.
During questioning, the officers expect one to give the answer they want or continue to face questions till the time they get a favourable answer, Singhvi submitted before the bench.
Meanwhile, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, also representing Chidambaram, filed an application for the production transcripts of custodial interrogation of Chidambaram, who is in CBI custody.
Chidamabaran on Tuesday filed a rejoinder to the Enforcement Directorate affidavit, which details the list countries where he and "his co-conspirators" allegedly held bank accounts and properties.
Sibal told the top court that he opposes ED's request to submit records in sealed cover in the court.
Sibal told the court that the ED cannot place documents behind his back and then seek arrest and interrogation as this is not even possible in matters of detention.
13:40 | Lawyers argue on retrospective effect of the PMLA law
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Chidambaram, told the court that the offence allegedly dated back to 2007 but the PMLA provisions came into effect in 2009. Despite this, the ED had invoked these provisions against Chidambaram.
Singhvi contended that the main provisions of law against Chidambaram became scheduled offences under PMLA only in 2009, which was after a year when the alleged FIPB approval was given in 2007-08.
Singhvi told the court that the sections under which Chidambaram had been charged did not exist when the alleged transaction took place.
"You are trying to paint a person as kingpin. And it is on the basis of offences that did not exist at that point in time," submitted Singhvi before the court.
12:40 | Chidambaram confronted with Ex-NITI Aayog member
12:08 | Chidambaram files fresh application in Supreme Court seeking court's directive to ED to produce transcript of his questioning by the agency to prove that he had been evasive in giving information
12:05 | Hearing begins
11:55 | Karti Chidambaram releases statement
Karti Chidambaram has, in a statement, slammed media saying TV anchors had bandied his assets documents as proof against him.
"I have said this ad nauseam. My assets are all duly accounted for and disclosed in all statutory filings. I have contested two elections, one successfully. I am obligated to publicly declare my assets and I have done so," Karti Chidambaram said in a statement.
"If the agencies, including the IT Department, had proof of 'undeclared assets' or 'undisclosed sources of income', they could have easily proceeded against me under the relevant provisions of law.
"Let me remind you that I am liable for disqualification from Parliament if I have misstated my assets," he said.
Sarcastically, he called himself a "Politically Exposed Person".
"The level of scrutiny that I have to go through to open bank accounts and transact business is onerous. There is absolutely no way that I could hold assets without provenance of source of funds.
"So, I ask TV anchors to be a bit more tempered in their coverage of 'stories' about my 'global wealth'.
Meanwhile, his advocate Arshdeep Singh Khurana has expressed shock over alleged leaks that have led to speculation in sections of the media about the Chidambarams' undeclared wealth.
"This seems to have been leaked with a view to sensationalise the matter and prejudice my client in the hearing scheduled before the Supreme Court tomorrow (Wednesday).
"We do not know even the sanctity of the affidavit and whether the same would be filed tomorrow. This seems to be an attempt to conduct a trial by media."
Khurana asserted that Karti Chidambaram did not own any property or had any bank account abroad.
ED sources have said they had reasons to believe that the money with which the property abroad was purchased allegedly came from the bribe in the INX Media deal, the case in which Chidambaram senior is embroiled.
10:55 | CBI brings ex-NITI Aayog CEO face to face with P Chidambaram
The CBI has called former NITI Aayog CEO Sindhushree Khullar to face Chidambaram.
The probe agency is expected to continue questioning Khullar on Tuesday.
Khullar was the additional secretary in the finance ministry during the period when the developments related to the INX Media allegedly took place.
In the Supreme Court hearing on Monday, the ED denied allegations that it had filed a "note" which was copied "word-by-word" in the Delhi High Court order denying Chidambaram anticipatory bail in the case.
Arguing for interim protection for Chidambaram from arrest in the ED case in connection with INX Media, his lawyer and senior advocate Kapil Sibal told a bench headed by Justice R Banumathi that the ED did not even choose to submit a formal affidavit, but instead filed a secret note against his client in the Delhi High Court.
He was responding to Justice Banumathi's inquiry as to how the case was decided by the high court, what was the nature of the documents filed and the arguments in connection with them.
Continuing his arguments, Sibal told the court that whatever has been brought on record in the high court order was never part of any proceedings.
"How did he (the high court judge) get all this? Nothing was filed in the court proceedings, but the judge had surprisingly brought the information on record... where is the case diary," he contended, opposing the conduct of ED in depriving his client the liberty to defend himself in the court.
Sibal also claimed that the ED note was copied verbatim by the Delhi High Court, and in fact, became the finding of the court.
In response, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing both ED and CBI, said that he was not aware from where Chidambaram's lawyers got hold of the note, as it was not part of the investigating agency records.
Sibal, during the arguments, read out excerpts from the alleged ED note, emphasising each and every word, which was copied into the Delhi High Court order.
As Mehta said that this was not fair, Sibal demanded that the ED should deny that the note was its, and come on record that it never submitted such a note in the high court.
"By saying that you did not give it to us is not enough for the matter at hand," he argued.
Mehta, in his reply, said that he had no idea as to how the lawyers got this note, as it was not been handed over by the ED.
At the end of the hearing, the top court extended the interim protection of Chidambaram from arrest by the ED till Tuesday, when it will continue hearing the arguments.
(with inputs from agencies)